DOCSLIB.ORG

The Long Overdue Recognition of Sarracenia Rubra Subsp. Viatorum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Long Overdue Recognition of Sarracenia Rubra Subsp. Viatorum cpnl-47-04-06, PAGE 152, 10/05/18 Technical Refereed Contribution The long overdue recognition of Sarracenia rubra subsp. viatorum Barry A. Rice • Center for Plant Diversity • University of California • One Shields Avenue • Davis • California 95616 • USA • [email protected] Keywords: Taxonomy: Sarracenia rubra subsp. viatorum. Introduction The complex of taxa associated with Sarracenia rubra Walter has long been embroiled in contro- versy, with many scientists having different perspectives on how the plant should be interpreted. In part, this is because the plants have an interesting, patchy distribution throughout the southeastern USA. An early classification scheme of the plants under discussion was promoted by Case & Case (1974, 1976): Sarracenia rubra Walter Sarracenia jonesii Wherry Sarracenia alabamensis Case & R.B.Case Sarracenia alabamensis subsp. wherryi Case & R.B.Case Don Schnell, who I candidly observe was highly influential in my own thoughts on this, intro- duced a new name to recognize the plants along the Florida Gulf Coast: Sarracenia rubra Walter Sarracenia rubra subsp. jonesii (Wherry) Wherry Sarracenia rubra subsp. alabamensis (Case & R.B.Case) D.E.Schnell Sarracenia rubra subsp. wherryi (Case & R.B.Case) D.E.Schnell Sarracenia rubra subsp. gulfensis D.E.Schnell Looking at the names of scientists after the epithets, you see he did this by reducing the Case & Case “S. alabamensis” to subspecies status under S. rubra, and also transferred S. alabamensis subsp. wherryi to S. rubra. You can also see how even Wherry was uncertain how to deal with the S. rubra subsp. jonesii taxon, first having treated it as a species, and then as a subspecies. This is the system that Schnell has promoted throughout his career in his various popular and technical publica- tions (Schnell 1976, 2002a; McPherson & Schnell 2011, 2013; and others). For many years I worked for The Nature Conservancy, and during this time I founded the Con- servation Program for the ICPS. While working with these organizations, I found it convenient to adopt the taxonomy widely used by many conservationists within the USA: Sarracenia rubra Walter Sarracenia jonesii Wherry Sarracenia alabamensis Case & R.B.Case Sarracenia rubra subsp. wherryi (Case & R.B.Case) D.E.Schnell Sarracenia rubra subsp. gulfensis D.E.Schnell This system suited me well for many years in my own publications (e.g., Rice 2006, 2018; and oth- ers). After leaving my position as the ICPS Director of Conservation Programs, as I no longer had to regularly liaise with conservation organizations, I began to use a hybrid system of classification, i.e., Sarracenia rubra Walter Sarracenia jonesii Wherry 152 Carnivorous Plant Newsletter cpnl-47-04-06, PAGE 153, 10/05/18 Sarracenia alabamensis Case & R.B.Case Sarracenia alabamensis subsp. wherryi Case & R.B.Case Sarracenia rubra subsp. gulfensis D.E.Schnell This change in how I viewed S. alabamensis subsp. wherryi was inspired by field work during which I was impressed by how similar that taxon is to S. alabamensis sensu stricto. Furthermore, much of the range of S. alabamensis subsp. wherryi occurs, in broad terms, downriver of S. alaba- mensis, and that migration of propagules towards the coast is feasible. This is the system that Mel- lichamp & Case use in their treatment of Sarracenia in the eFlora of North America (Mellichamp & Case 2009). The only additions to the nomenclature of the plants in the complex were made by McPherson & Schnell (2011), who added names to denote two anthocyanin-free forms (i.e., S. rubra Wal- ter f. luteoviridis S.McPherson & D.E.Schnell, and S. rubra Walter f. viridescens S.McPherson & D.E.Schnell). In this work, the authors also corrected an error of protocol which required the change of “Sarracenia rubra subsp. alabamensis (Case & R.B.Case) D.E.Schnell” to “Sarracenia rubra subsp. alabamensis (Case & R.B.Case) S.McPherson & D.E.Schnell”. The History of an Unresolved Issue A final, long unresolved issue remains unaddressed regarding the S. rubra complex. In central Georgia, there are disjunct populations of the plant that seem to defy easy classification. Case & Case (1976) noted this group but concluded the plants fell into their concept of S. rubra. Sheridan & Scholl (1993) showed an image captioned “Robust colony of S. rubra (possibly ancestral S. rubra ssp. gulfensis) growing in hillside seepage bog of Marion County, Georgia 11/2/91”, but without supporting commentary in their text. Over several years, Sheridan and colleagues discussed this plant further (Sheridan et al. 1997; Sheridan & Patrick 2000), describing the communities in which it occurs, and recommended further evaluation of plants in the Sarracenia rubra complex. In 2002, Schnell summarized the situation regarding the S. rubra complex in his authoritative treatment of carnivorous plants in the USA and Canada. In doing so, he noted in a range map (see Schnell 2002a page 165) a discontinuous population of plants in central Georgia, specifically in “Taylor County and environs.” Schnell notes that these plants “have the closest affinity to subspe- cies gulfensis, which is where I place them unless or until further studies indicate otherwise.” In their eFlora, Mellichamp & Case (2009) noted that the plants from Taylor County (and presumably elsewhere in the range segment) are “very dark maroon and very hairy externally”; they also recom- mended that these plants should be placed within S. rubra subsp. gulfensis. Horticulturists—always on the lookout for something interesting and different—have long had interest in these plants, in particular those from Taylor County and Crawford County. Such plants are grown with a variety of unofficial names such as Sarracenia rubra “ancestral form,” Sarracenia rubra subsp. gulfensis “ancestor,” or Sarracenia rubra “Flint River drainage.” The most complete treatment of these plants appeared in McPherson & Schnell (2011). In this work, the authors summarized what we know about this taxon, and compellingly argue that it dis- plays distinct, if complicated, attributes. Despite the excellent summary on this plant’s distinguish- ing characteristics and range, McPherson & Schnell did not establish a name for the plant. This is particularly surprising, especially since the book (including my own Darlingtonia contribution in it) included names of nineteen new varieties and forms! Instead, the authors chose to use the somewhat cumbersome name “Sarracenia rubra ‘Incompletely diagnosed taxon from Georgia and South Car- olina’” throughout the six-page treatment of the plant. This terminology has not been adopted by the Volume 47 December 2018 153 cpnl-47-04-06, PAGE 154, 10/05/18 community of carnivorous plant horticulturists; however, McPherson & Schnell continued to use it in their next work (McPherson & Schnell 2013), which is essentially a distillation of McPherson & Schnell (2011). The use of single quotes in their terminology could be confusing, because in horti- culture, single quotes is reserved for officially established cultivar names. However, for consistency with them, I will use it in this article despite its illegality. I ask forgiveness. A Step Long Overdue Frankly speaking, there are three perspectives on how to move forward. The first is to be satis- fied with current taxonomy, and simply classify Sarracenia rubra ‘Incompletely diagnosed taxon from Georgia and South Carolina’ as a population of a plant taxon with an existing name. This is the route taken by, for examples, Mellichamp & Case (2009) or Schnell (prior to 2011). Similarly, it might be concluded that these plants simply represents some kind of hybrid swarm—an intermedi- ate population caused by the intermingling of other subspecies, but one that has not stabilized itself into a evolutionarily significant entity. I do not think that these plants fit these scenarios. A second approach is to study the plants until enough data are amassed to clearly—perhaps by statistical or molecular means—be able to develop some complete and clear metric for characteriz- ing this taxon. In this way, for example, Schnell (2002b) elevated the under-described entity, known previously as S. minor ‘Okee Giant’, to S. minor Walter var. okefenokeensis D.E.Schnell. Unfortu- nately, there is no indication that this will happen for our case in S. rubra. The name “S. rubra ‘In- completely diagnosed taxon from Georgia and South Carolina’” has been in circulation since 2011, and “Sarracenia rubra ‘Ancestral’” has arguably been in use since 1993, with no resolution yet! A third approach is that which has long been used in botany, and that is to simply construct an appropriate Latin name, select a type specimen as a voucher, describe the plant as best as is pos- sible at the time, and let history sort out the details. Obviously, the point is not to litter the history of plant research with outmoded synonyms. However, the role of nomenclature is to serve science, and in this case, it seems that some sort of name—more clearly defined than those previously in use—could and should be coined for use. Furthermore, I note that—from a conservation standpoint—having a plant with a name on it can be far more useful for conservation workers in their attempts to protect plants. As an example, it is far more compelling to try to promote the protection of S. purpurea var. montana, than it would be if the plant were called S. purpurea ‘Incompletely diagnosed taxon from Georgia and the Carolinas’! Sarracenia rubra Walter subsp. viatorum B.Rice, subsp. nov. LATIN DIAGNOSIS. Sarracenia rubra subsp. gulfensi similis. Imprimis ascidiorum magnitudine parviore, operculo hiantiore vel sursum versus plus obliquato ascidiorumque facie externa dense pubescente differt. Planta e regione collina “Fall Line” Georgiae Carolinaeque Meridionalis adja- cente. ENGLISH DIAGNOSIS. Similar to Sarracenia rubra subsp. gulfensis. Differs primarily in smaller pitcher size, a lid that is more gaping or slanted upwards, and densely pubescent pitcher exteriors. A plant of the fall line of Georgia and adjacent South Carolina.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Sarracenias Aquascapes Seed Grown Hybrids Dutch Treats Collector's
    AQUASCAPES UNLIMITED, INC PO Box 364, Pipersville PA 18947 Phone: 215-766-8151, Fax: 215-766-8986 www.aquascapesunlimited.com EMAIL: [email protected] Spring 2014 Our Sarracenias are sold in small, medium and large sizes. The availability is indicated in the chart below with an X=Avail . The pricing reflects age and size: Small - $1.95 (1-2 Years) Multiples of 6, Medium - $3.95 (2-3 Years) Multiples of 5, Large - $8.95 (3-4Years) Multiples of 4. Sarracenias Botanical Name Common Name Small Med. Large Sarracenia alata Pale Pitcher X X X Sarracenia flava Yellow Trumpet X X Sarracenia leucophylla White Trumpet X X Sarracenia leucophylla 'Tarnock' ‘Tarnock’ X X Sarracenia psittacina Parrot Pitcher X Sarracenia purpurea Purple Pitcher X X X Sarracenia rubra Sweet Pitcher X X S. rubra ssp. jonesii (all green) Sweet Pitcher (all green) X Sarracenia x UNC Hybrid ‘Dixie Lace’ X X Sarracenia x UNC Hybrid ‘Doodle Bug’ X Sarracenia x UNC Hybrid ‘Mardi Gras’ X X Sarracenia x UNC Hybrid ‘Red Bug’ X Aquascapes Seed Grown Hybrids Sarracenia Hybrid Botanical Name Small Med. Large S. x areolata S. leucophylla x alata X X X S. x catesbaei S. purp x flava X X X S. readii x moorei S. (leuco x rubra j) (lxf) X X S. x readii All Green S. leuco x rubra jonsii X S. x moorei S. flava x leucophylla X S. x formosa (Limited) S. psitt x minor X Dutch Treats Botanical Name Common Name Size Price S. x 'Farnhamii ' Sarracenia x 'Farnhamii ' PL/72 3.95 S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chinquapin the Newsletter of the Southern Appalachian Botanical Society
    chinquapin The Newsletter of the Southern Appalachian Botanical Society Volume 16, No. 4 Winter 2008 Happy Holidays from SABS Red spruce “hunkering down” for winter in the Great Smoky Mountains Photo by Scott Ranger 2 Chinquapin 16 (4) The Newsletter of the Southern Appalachian Botanical Society SABS Officers & Editors Conley K. McMullen, President Department of Biology, MSC 7801 Field Notes by Scott Ranger James Madison University Harrisonburg, VA 22807 3) Do weather conditions control flowering? (540) 568-3805 · fax (540) 568-3333 Three-birds Orchid Update I made a careful comparison of weather [email protected] conditions in 2007 (very hot with 14 days Howard S. Neufeld, Past President With another season of observing this > 90°F and 5 >100°F and dry with ~20% of Department of Biology ephemeral orchid at Pickett’s Mill Battlefield normal rainfall) and 2008 (nearly normal). 572 Rivers Street State Historic Site, I’ve come up with some The same flowering pattern occurred both Appalachian State University observations and questions. The photograph years. It seems weather, at least in these two Boone, NC 28608 below is illustrative for both. If anyone has years, didn’t have an effect on flowering. We (828) 262-2683 · fax (828) 262-2127 any answers, I’d love to hear them. counted a total of 460 stems in 2008, up [email protected] 61.5% from 2007. Weather probably had Charles N. Horn, Treasurer Observations: something to do with this. Biology Department • Even the smallest stems (>2 mm diameter 2100 College Street and >3 cm tall) have at least one well- 4) Is synchronicity overemphasized? I think Newberry College developed flower bud.
    [Show full text]
  • Educational Posters on Threatened Plant Communities of North Carolina
    Submitted by Nicolette L. Cagle on June 26, 2012 Native Plant Studies Certificate Project: Educational Posters on Threatened Plant Communities of North Carolina Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest from the Coastal Plain, NC. [Photo by David Blevins, Ph.D.] Submitted by Nicolette L. Cagle on June 26, 2012 Table of Contents Background ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Description........................................................................................................................................ 3 Timeline......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Most Threatened Plant Communities in North Carolina .............................................................................. 4 Poster Display at the North Carolina Botanical Garden................................................................................ 5 Posters .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Threatened Plant Communities ................................................................................................................ 7 Poster Project References
    [Show full text]
  • Carnivorous Plant Responses to Resource Availability
    Carnivorous plant responses to resource availability: environmental interactions, morphology and biochemistry Christopher R. Hatcher A doctoral thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University November 2019 © by Christopher R. Hatcher (2019) Abstract Understanding how organisms respond to resources available in the environment is a fundamental goal of ecology. Resource availability controls ecological processes at all levels of organisation, from molecular characteristics of individuals to community and biosphere. Climate change and other anthropogenically driven factors are altering environmental resource availability, and likely affects ecology at all levels of organisation. It is critical, therefore, to understand the ecological impact of environmental variation at a range of spatial and temporal scales. Consequently, I bring physiological, ecological, biochemical and evolutionary research together to determine how plants respond to resource availability. In this thesis I have measured the effects of resource availability on phenotypic plasticity, intraspecific trait variation and metabolic responses of carnivorous sundew plants. Carnivorous plants are interesting model systems for a range of evolutionary and ecological questions because of their specific adaptations to attaining nutrients. They can, therefore, provide interesting perspectives on existing questions, in this case trait-environment interactions, plant strategies and plant responses to predicted future environmental scenarios. In a manipulative experiment, I measured the phenotypic plasticity of naturally shaded Drosera rotundifolia in response to disturbance mediated changes in light availability over successive growing seasons. Following selective disturbance, D. rotundifolia became more carnivorous by increasing the number of trichomes and trichome density. These plants derived more N from prey and flowered earlier.
    [Show full text]
  • Carnivorous Plant Newsletter V42 N3 September 2013
    Technical Refereed Contribution Phylogeny and biogeography of the Sarraceniaceae JOHN BRITTNACHER • Ashland, Oregon • USA • [email protected] Keywords: History: Sarraceniaceae evolution The carnivorous plant family Sarraceniaceae in the order Ericales consists of three genera: Dar- lingtonia, Heliamphora, and Sarracenia. Darlingtonia is represented by one species that is found in northern California and western Oregon. The genus Heliamphora currently has 23 recognized species all of which are native to the Guiana Highlands primarily in Venezuela with some spillover across the borders into Brazil and Guyana. Sarracenia has 15 species and subspecies, all but one of which are located in the southeastern USA. The range of Sarracenia purpurea extends into the northern USA and Canada. Closely related families in the plant order Ericales include the Roridu- laceae consisting of two sticky-leaved carnivorous plant species, Actinidiaceae, the Chinese goose- berry family, Cyrillaceae, which includes the common wetland plant Cyrilla racemiflora, and the family Clethraceae, which also has wetland plants including Clethra alnifolia. The rather charismatic plants of the Sarraceniaceae have drawn attention since the mid 19th century from botanists trying to understand how they came into being, how the genera are related to each other, and how they came to have such disjunct distributions. Before the advent of DNA sequencing it was very difficult to determine their relationships. Macfarlane (1889, 1893) proposed a phylogeny of the Sarraceniaceae based on his judgment of the overlap in features of the adult pitchers and his assumption that Nepenthes is a member of the family (Fig. 1a). He based his phy- logeny on the idea that the pitchers are produced from the fusion of two to five leaflets.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Genetic Diversity for the USA Endemic Carnivorous Plant Pinguicula Ionantha R.K. Godfrey (Lentibulariaceae)
    Conserv Genet (2017) 18:171–180 DOI 10.1007/s10592-016-0891-9 RESEARCH ARTICLE Assessing genetic diversity for the USA endemic carnivorous plant Pinguicula ionantha R.K. Godfrey (Lentibulariaceae) 1 1 2 3 David N. Zaya • Brenda Molano-Flores • Mary Ann Feist • Jason A. Koontz • Janice Coons4 Received: 10 May 2016 / Accepted: 30 September 2016 / Published online: 18 October 2016 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016 Abstract Understanding patterns of genetic diversity and data; the dominant cluster at each site corresponded to the population structure for rare, narrowly endemic plant spe- results from PCoA and Nei’s genetic distance analyses. cies, such as Pinguicula ionantha (Godfrey’s butterwort; The observed patterns of genetic diversity suggest that Lentibulariaceae), informs conservation goals and can although P. ionantha populations are isolated spatially by directly affect management decisions. Pinguicula ionantha distance and both natural and anthropogenic barriers, some is a federally listed species endemic to the Florida Pan- gene flow occurs among them or isolation has been too handle in the southeastern USA. The main goal of our recent to leave a genetic signature. The relatively low level study was to assess patterns of genetic diversity and of genetic diversity associated with this species is a con- structure in 17 P. ionantha populations, and to determine if cern as it may impair fitness and evolutionary capability in diversity is associated with geographic location or popu- a changing environment. The results of this study provide lation characteristics. We scored 240 individuals at a total the foundation for the development of management prac- of 899 AFLP markers (893 polymorphic markers).
    [Show full text]
  • The Microbial Phyllogeography of the Carnivorous Plant Sarracenia Alata
    Microb Ecol (2011) 61:750–758 DOI 10.1007/s00248-011-9832-9 PLANT MICROBE INTERACTIONS The Microbial Phyllogeography of the Carnivorous Plant Sarracenia alata Margaret M. Koopman & Bryan C. Carstens Received: 6 November 2010 /Accepted: 15 February 2011 /Published online: 24 March 2011 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Abstract Carnivorous pitcher plants host diverse microbial Introduction communities. This plant–microbe association provides a unique opportunity to investigate the evolutionary process- The integration of ecosystem genetics, phylogenetics, and es that influence the spatial diversity of microbial commu- community ecology has provided important insights into nities. Using next-generation sequencing of environmental the diversity, assembly, evolution, and functionality of samples, we surveyed microbial communities from 29 communities [1–5]. By exploring ecosystems in an evolu- pitcher plants (Sarracenia alata) and compare community tionary framework, investigators can measure genetic composition with plant genetic diversity in order to interactions across variable temporal and spatial scales explore the influence of historical processes on the and gain insight into fundamental processes such as food population structure of each lineage. Analyses reveal web dynamics and nutrient cycling [1, 3, 4]. Studies that there is a core S. alata microbiome, and that it is integrating these fields initially focused on the genetics of similar in composition to animal gut microfaunas. The plant species that supply a variety of important resources spatial structure of community composition in S. alata and environmental structure to other organisms in the (phyllogeography) is congruent at the deepest level with ecosystem [6]. An intriguing extension of these studies, the dominant features of the landscape, including the and an important opportunity for community geneticists, is Mississippi river and the discrete habitat boundaries that to further investigate community level responses to host– the plants occupy.
    [Show full text]
  • Pl (Sarracenia Tcher Plant
    Green Pll tcher Plant (Sarracenia U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia GREEN PITCHER PLANT Sar.raceni a oreophi 1a RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approved: May 11, 1983) (First Revision Approved: April 5, 1985) (Second Revision Approved: Dec. 12, 1994 Prepared by Green Pitcher Plant Recovery Team Dennis Jordan, Leader Revised by Cary Norquist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jackson, Mississippi for Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia Approved: Acting Regional Director, outheast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, involved in the plan formulation. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ~~jy after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species’ status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Acknowledgement Appreciation is expressed to the University of Georgia Press for permission to use Barbara Culbertson’s illustration from Aauatic & Wetland Plans of Southeastern United States: Dicotyledons, authors Godfrey and Wooten, on the front cover. Literature citations should read as follows: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • (Sarracenia) Provide a 21St-Century Perspective on Infraspecific Ranks and Interspecific Hybrids: a Modest Proposal* for Appropriate Recognition and Usage
    Systematic Botany (2014), 39(3) © Copyright 2014 by the American Society of Plant Taxonomists DOI 10.1600/036364414X681473 Date of publication 05/27/2014 Pitcher Plants (Sarracenia) Provide a 21st-Century Perspective on Infraspecific Ranks and Interspecific Hybrids: A Modest Proposal* for Appropriate Recognition and Usage Aaron M. Ellison,1,5 Charles C. Davis,2 Patrick J. Calie,3 and Robert F. C. Naczi4 1Harvard University, Harvard Forest, 324 North Main Street, Petersham, Massachusetts 01366, U. S. A. 2Harvard University Herbaria, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, 22 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U. S. A. 3Eastern Kentucky University, Department of Biological Sciences, 521 Lancaster Avenue, Richmond, Kentucky 40475, U. S. A. 4The New York Botanical Garden, 2900 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, New York 10458, U. S. A. 5Author for correspondence ([email protected]) Communicating Editor: Chuck Bell Abstract—The taxonomic use of infraspecific ranks (subspecies, variety, subvariety, form, and subform), and the formal recognition of interspecific hybrid taxa, is permitted by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. However, considerable confusion regarding the biological and systematic merits is caused by current practice in the use of infraspecific ranks, which obscures the meaningful variability on which natural selection operates, and by the formal recognition of those interspecific hybrids that lack the potential for inter-lineage gene flow. These issues also may have pragmatic and legal consequences, especially regarding the legal delimitation and management of threatened and endangered species. A detailed comparison of three contemporary floras highlights the degree to which infraspecific and interspecific variation are treated inconsistently.
    [Show full text]
  • International Cooperation Among Botanic Gardens
    INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AMONG BOTANIC GARDENS: THE CONCEPT OF ESTABLISHING AGREEMENTS By Erich S. Rudyj A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of elaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science in Public Horticulture Administration May 1988 © 1988 Erich S. Rudyj INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION~ AMONG BOTANIC GARDENS: THE CONCEPT OF EsrtBllSHING AGREEMENTS 8y Erich S. Rudyj Approved: _ James E. Swasey, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee Approved: _ James E. Swasey, Ph.D. Coordinator of the Longwood Graduate Program Approved: _ Richard 8. MLfrray, Ph.D. Associate Provost for Graduate Studies No man is an /land, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie '-"Jere, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - JOHN DONNE - In the Seventeenth Meditation of the Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions (1624) iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincerest thanks to Donald Crossan, James Oliver and James Swasey, who, as members of my thesis committee, provided me with the kind of encouragement and guidance needed to merge both the fields of Public Horticulture and International Affairs. Special thanks are extended to the organizers and participants of the Tenth General Meeting and Conference of the International Association of Botanical Gardens (IABG) for their warmth, advice and indefatigable spirit of international cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY
    Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerfield, J., and J. Wen. 2002. A morphometric analysis of Hedera L. (the ivy genus, Araliaceae) and its taxonomic implications. Adansonia 24: 197-212. Adams, P. 1961. Observations on the Sagittaria subulata complex. Rhodora 63: 247-265. Adams, R.M. II, and W.J. Dress. 1982. Nodding Lilium species of eastern North America (Liliaceae). Baileya 21: 165-188. Adams, R.P. 1986. Geographic variation in Juniperus silicicola and J. virginiana of the Southeastern United States: multivariant analyses of morphology and terpenoids. Taxon 35: 31-75. ------. 1995. Revisionary study of Caribbean species of Juniperus (Cupressaceae). Phytologia 78: 134-150. ------, and T. Demeke. 1993. Systematic relationships in Juniperus based on random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs). Taxon 42: 553-571. Adams, W.P. 1957. A revision of the genus Ascyrum (Hypericaceae). Rhodora 59: 73-95. ------. 1962. Studies in the Guttiferae. I. A synopsis of Hypericum section Myriandra. Contr. Gray Herbarium Harv. 182: 1-51. ------, and N.K.B. Robson. 1961. A re-evaluation of the generic status of Ascyrum and Crookea (Guttiferae). Rhodora 63: 10-16. Adams, W.P. 1973. Clusiaceae of the southeastern United States. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 89: 62-71. Adler, L. 1999. Polygonum perfoliatum (mile-a-minute weed). Chinquapin 7: 4. Aedo, C., J.J. Aldasoro, and C. Navarro. 1998. Taxonomic revision of Geranium sections Batrachioidea and Divaricata (Geraniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 594-630. Affolter, J.M. 1985. A monograph of the genus Lilaeopsis (Umbelliferae). Systematic Bot. Monographs 6. Ahles, H.E., and A.E.
    [Show full text]